Church Goer's Support Tourture?

Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
Click to expand...
It's actually this particular sentence that's troubling me. Church-goer or no church-goer, the overall percentage of people saying that torture is justified is alarmingly high.
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html

And yet, I am not suprized by this at all! Discuss.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this does not surprise me at all either. One of the internet forums I hang out on has a population of about 95%+ staunch Right-wing Christians. I actually got into an argument with them on torture a while ago (I personally think the use of torture is disgusting). I think that it partially is to do with the stereotype that all terrorists are Muslim, so they think Muslim = terrorist. A lot of them think that Islam is the most evil force around, so it's not hard to see why they would support torture if it's being done against their "enemy". :(
 
Nemo said:
Sadly, this does not surprise me at all either. One of the internet forums I hang out on has a population of about 95%+ staunch Right-wing Christians. I actually got into an argument with them on torture a while ago (I personally think the use of torture is disgusting). I think that it partially is to do with the stereotype that all terrorists are Muslim, so they think Muslim = terrorist. A lot of them think that Islam is the most evil force around, so it's not hard to see why they would support torture if it's being done against their "enemy". :(
Click to expand...
I struggle to understand why more people don't see the irony in embracing acts that makes them precisely what they perceive their enemy to be.
 
Julia said:
I struggle to understand why more people don't see the irony in embracing acts that makes them precisely what they perceive their enemy to be.
Click to expand...

Because, sadly, as long as it's not being done to them (said Christians), they don't care, and they think it's moral for them to do it.
 
The problem is you are dealing with a person that is hell bent on your destruction. Nothing you can say or do is going to change his mind. When he gets a nuke and launches it at your country would you rather torture that one guy or let an entire city disappear into dust? I am not for torture I am for self preservation.
 
efromm said:
The problem is you are dealing with a person that is hell bent on your destruction. Nothing you can say or do is going to change his mind. When he gets a nuke and launches it at your country would you rather torture that one guy or let an entire city disappear into dust? I am not for torture I am for self preservation.
Click to expand...
The problem is the person may be hell bent on your destruction. How can you be certain there is nothing that can be done or said? Can anything be said to convince people in the West or are we the same? These people are tortured before ever standing a trial. They are guilty until proven innocent using torture as the means to prove guilt or innocence. I would rather be destroyed than to support dehumanization. I fear becoming those things I despise more than I fear death.

You can also go deeper and ask "why are they hell-bent on our destruction?" Perhaps they have been manipulated with propaganda stating how evil we are in the West? Possibly how hell-bent we are on controlling or destroying them? Perhaps they are facing desperation and have to make choices we haven't had to make. Perhaps we are them when placed in their shoes. Until we can see in an enemy an entire human being who's actions are the effect of a compelling cause, then we are participating in the dehumanization process and are providing reasons for such a person to feel bent on our destruction. If they had captured my brother and used torture on him simply because they thought he might be guilty or have some information, then I would have to wrestle with not using that as a compelling reason to become hell-bent towards their destruction.
 
Last edited:
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.
Click to expand...

Pew Research Centre also did this survey about Americans feeling like churches shouldn't meddle in politics (but that opinion has started to sway?)

I found this intriguing, thank you for sharing, Indigo. I'm curious to see if there's further evolution in church/religion's roles as time progresses.
 
Julia said:
The problem is the person may be hell bent on your destruction. How can you be certain there is nothing that can be done or said? Can anything be said to convince people in the West or are we the same? These people are tortured before ever standing a trial. They are guilty until proven innocent using torture as the means to prove guilt or innocence. I would rather be destroyed than to support dehumanization. I fear becoming those things I despise more than I fear death.

You can also go deeper and ask "why are they hell-bent on our destruction?" Perhaps they have been manipulated with propaganda stating how evil we are in the West? Possibly how hell-bent we are on controlling or destroying them? Perhaps they are facing desperation and have to make choices we haven't had to make. Perhaps we are them when placed in their shoes. Until we can see in an enemy an entire human being who's actions are the effect of a compelling cause, then we are participating in the dehumanization process and are providing reasons for such a person to feel bent on our destruction. If they had captured my brother and used torture on him simply because they thought he might be guilty or have some information, then I would have to wrestle with not using that as a compelling reason to become hell-bent towards their destruction.
Click to expand...

I can't be sure of anything other than I as an American get blamed for everything my government does on my behalf. I could not stop 911 I knew nothing about it. I could not stop Bush either. I am responsible for myself. Now if the rest of the world would do the same everything would be ok. As a matter of fact I would love to isolate from the rest of the world and let the so called terrorists attack everyone else and we could mind our own business. Life is not fair and we have jails full of Americans who get raped daily by other inmates? DO they deserve to get phucked up the ass or to suck a penis against their will? Not to mention that they also get shanked and get the shit beat out of them. I know several men who were tortured in Vietnam and in WW2. They were made to sign papers saying that they were traitors and watched their friends die at the hands of there captors. Every nation has used torture it's just America that is under the spot light right now. I think today's methods are better than the ones used in the past, usually they died. I am not for torture I am for self preservation and there are times weather you like it or not you have to use every tool in your arsenal .
 
Last edited:
I am off to thinking about a kidnapper that has buried a young girl in a box with limited air. The cops catch the guy and pretty much feel it is him. The guy won't bend on his being secretive where the girl is.
I could most likely list several scenarios. Am I trying to justify a broad generalization called torture? Nope! Am I trying to verify a broad generalization against torture? Nope! I am saying there may be times when people feel the need to go past ethical to get the needed results. I will not judge them for what they feel is necessary to protect others, as I do not know the full circumstances. I will not advocate the running down of Christians, either, at the drop of a pencil for any reason felt necessary to run them down. Broad generalizations; be careful of them. There may be an exception to the rule one might consider if the shoe were on the other foot. Who knows? I think each circumstance should be fully weighed before making such a generalization, but that is my opinion. You are welcome to yours, too.
 
efromm said:
I am not for torture I am for self preservation and there are times weather you like it or not you have to use every tool in your arsenal .
Click to expand...

You can't be against torture when there's noone to torture and for it when someone looks at you funny. Ideologies mean nothing if they are overlooked when matters get heated. Disregarding what's ethical and what's humane in order to archieve an illusion of security is despicable behaviour.

just me said:
I am off to thinking about a kidnapper that has buried a young girl in a box with limited air. The cops catch the guy and pretty much feel it is him. The guy won't bend on his being secretive where the girl is.
I could most likely list several scenarios. Am I trying to justify a broad generalization called torture? Nope! Am I trying to verify a broad generalization against torture? Nope! I am saying there may be times when people feel the need to go past ethical to get the needed results. I will not judge them for what they feel is necessary to protect others, as I do not know the full circumstances. I will not advocate the running down of Christians, either, at the drop of a pencil for any reason felt necessary to run them down. Broad generalizations; be careful of them. There may be an exception to the rule one might consider if the shoe were on the other foot. Who knows? I think each circumstance should be fully weighed before making such a generalization, but that is my opinion. You are welcome to yours, too.
Click to expand...


I, too, can make up scenarios involving insane supervillains. They aren't real arguments though.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
I am off to thinking about a kidnapper that has buried a young girl in a box with limited air. The cops catch the guy and pretty much feel it is him. The guy won't bend on his being secretive where the girl is.
I could most likely list several scenarios. Am I trying to justify a broad generalization called torture? Nope! Am I trying to verify a broad generalization against torture? Nope! I am saying there may be times when people feel the need to go past ethical to get the needed results. I will not judge them for what they feel is necessary to protect others, as I do not know the full circumstances. I will not advocate the running down of Christians, either, at the drop of a pencil for any reason felt necessary to run them down. Broad generalizations; be careful of them. There may be an exception to the rule one might consider if the shoe were on the other foot. Who knows? I think each circumstance should be fully weighed before making such a generalization, but that is my opinion. You are welcome to yours, too.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with someone torturing someone to get information. I just have a problem with the torturer not being prosecuted for it later. It's okay to cross ethical lines, but only if a person feels the circumstances for doing so are worth the punishment they will receive. A torturer who tries to escape punishment for their actions is nothing but a coward no matter what the circumstances. I would have no problem going to jail in order to save a young girl in a box, and so I could torture a man under those circumstances. I'm not a coward, and so I wouldn't shy away from the punishment I would deserve for doing so.

All these right wing Christians are doing is protecting cowards.
 
No, I'm not for torture. In fact, there's good evidence to support the idea that the information you receive from a torture victim isn't reliable information - or rather, you're receiving the data based off a tired, incoherent mind at this point. You'll confess to anything when you're depleted physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally.

I am a Christian, but I don't support torture. There was an excellent report on NPR a few months back with someone who chose to use alternative methods to get information from so-called Islamic terrorists. He did not use torture, and his information was both reliable and accurate. He chose to befriend his enemies and get to know them, and he was even more effective than those who chose the torture methods to obtain data.

I wish I could find the link for that report. I might search for it online.
 
Satya said:
I have no problem with someone torturing someone to get information. I just have a problem with the torturer not being prosecuted for it later. It's okay to cross ethical lines, but only if a person feels the circumstances for doing so are worth the punishment they will receive. A torturer who tries to escape punishment for their actions is nothing but a coward no matter what the circumstances. I would have no problem going to jail in order to save a young girl in a box, and so I could torture a man under those circumstances. I'm not a coward, and so I wouldn't shy away from the punishment I would deserve for doing so.

All these right wing Christians are doing is protecting cowards.
Click to expand...

We see eye to eye on this, Satya, up to going to jail. I would not mind standing trial and dealing with the consequences......if that meant going to jail. I did not make that supervillian up, either. I cannot agree with the part you said you would deserve the punishment. I do agree it alright for you to feel like you deserved punishment. You do not agree it alright for someone to feel they do not deserve punishment. Everyone is not going to feel the same way, especially if there is a positive, life-saving outcome.
There are different degrees of torture, too. It can be like torture living with a person. Please do not place all Christians in a box with a label is all I ask.
Different people feel differently. The post above mine is a prime example.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
We see eye to eye on this, Satya, up to going to jail. I would not mind standing trial and dealing with the consequences......if that meant going to jail. I did not make that supervillian up, either. I cannot agree with the part you said you would deserve the punishment. I do agree it alright for you to feel like you deserved punishment. You do not agree it alright for someone to feel they do not deserve punishment. Everyone is not going to feel the same way, especially if there is a positive, life-saving outcome.
There are different degrees of torture, too. It can be like torture living with a person. Please do not place all Christians in a box with a label is all I ask.
Different people feel differently. The post above mine is a prime example.
Click to expand...

You do deserve the punishment. A person who hurts another human being, no matter the circumstances, still hurt another human being.

And I agree there are different levels of torture, but there is also different levels of punishments for those who do torture.

Also, I specifically mentioned right wing Christians. Maybe you feel that right wing Christian are all Christians, but I firmly disagree. The religion is immaterial to my point and it's the political vendetta that distorts it. Being right wing means you hold to the position that there needs to be a social hierarchy. To me, the term right wing Christian is an oxymoron. Right wing Christian people who claim to be Christian, a religion which endorses neighborly love and piety, but politically support torture and oppression, are living hypocrites and cowards. If you are one, then I pity you.
 
Satya said:
I have no problem with someone torturing someone to get information. I just have a problem with the torturer not being prosecuted for it later. It's okay to cross ethical lines, but only if a person feels the circumstances for doing so are worth the punishment they will receive. A torturer who tries to escape punishment for their actions is nothing but a coward no matter what the circumstances. I would have no problem going to jail in order to save a young girl in a box, and so I could torture a man under those circumstances. I'm not a coward, and so I wouldn't shy away from the punishment I would deserve for doing so.
Click to expand...
One assumption we are dealing with in this thread so far is that torture is an effective means to gather information. It can be argued that torture compels a person to say whatever will make the torture stop, rather than speaking the truth. I do wonder about tactics that take a person to an extreme state of mind and then assumes that what is expressed is accurate and true. The danger in high conflict scenarios is that torture can also fill the need to punish and not simply to extract information. I'm for finding the most effective means to gather the most important information to stop a cruelty or violation from occurring.

The scenario you provide in your post is an effective, distilled version of the issue of torture because it possesses a dynamic in which extracting information will save a life, the person is already basically proven guilty, and the information only exists inside their head. Those are three conditions that aren't always met when this issue of torture is examined. I think you present it well in saying that there still needs to be a consequence for crossing a boundary to violate another person even if there are cases in which that consequence is considered worth it.
 
arbygil said:
No, I'm not for torture. In fact, there's good evidence to support the idea that the information you receive from a torture victim isn't reliable information - or rather, you're receiving the data based off a tired, incoherent mind at this point. You'll confess to anything when you're depleted physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally.

I am a Christian, but I don't support torture. There was an excellent report on NPR a few months back with someone who chose to use alternative methods to get information from so-called Islamic terrorists. He did not use torture, and his information was both reliable and accurate. He chose to befriend his enemies and get to know them, and he was even more effective than those who chose the torture methods to obtain data.

I wish I could find the link for that report. I might search for it online.
Click to expand...

It's even an effective method of getting entire NATIONS to play nice with you. Don't throw sanctions on them, don't threaten them with nuclear annihilation, just be cool.
 
Satya said:
You do deserve the punishment. A person who hurts another human being, no matter the circumstances, still hurt another human being.

And I agree there are different levels of torture, but there is also different levels of punishments for those who do torture.

Also, I specifically mentioned right wing Christians. Maybe you feel that right wing Christian are all Christians, but I firmly disagree. The religion is immaterial to my point and it's the political vendetta that distorts it. Being right wing means you hold to the position that there needs to be a social hierarchy. To me, the term right wing Christian is an oxymoron. Right wing Christian people who claim to be Christian, a religion which endorses neighborly love and piety, but politically support torture and oppression, are living hypocrites and cowards. If you are one, then I pity you.
Click to expand...

If I were a right-wing Christian, would you deserve punishment from just hurting me, another human being?
Also, it is possible for right-wing Christians to disagree with each other regarding issues...happens all the time. You are judging all RWCs.
 
just me said:
If I were a right-wing Christian, would you deserve punishment from just hurting me, another human being?
Also, it is possible for right-wing Christians to disagree with each other regarding issues...happens all the time. You are judging all RWCs.
Click to expand...

There is no rule against speaking your mind. Also, you have the choice of whether you read what I write or to ignore it. A person who is being tortured generally has no choice. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant.

I also defined right wing Christians by the most fundamental aspect of their beliefs, which are inherently contradictory. I judge all right wing Christians by that definition, and anyone who falls outside that definition is not a right wing Christian to me. It is immaterial whether RWC's disagree on issues, because when it comes to the issues of torture and oppression, they all hold the same view and they are all dead wrong, hypocritical, and frankly sheep and cowards.
 
Satya said:
There is no rule against speaking your mind. Also, you have the choice of whether you read what I write or to ignore it. A person who is being tortured generally has no choice. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant.

I also defined right wing Christians by the most fundamental aspect of their beliefs, which are inherently contradictory. I judge all right wing Christians by that definition, and anyone who falls outside that definition is not a right wing Christian to me. It is immaterial whether RWC's disagree on issues, because when it comes to the issues of torture and oppression, they all hold the same view and they are all dead wrong, hypocritical, and frankly sheep and cowards.
Click to expand...

When quoted and addressed, I feel a need to read and answer rather than ignore. You said, "A person that hurts another human being, no matter the circumstances, still hurt another human being." If you know I am a Christian and continue to bash Christians and judge them so harshly, it does not hurt me.....I am used to it. However, it may hurt other Christians. I do think it unfair to judge others, as that is the way I was taught....especially with bitterness aimed at the entire group that can still disagree.
A person has chosen silence, therefore has already made a choice. They could talk and avoid torture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top